| Previous Section | Home Page |
Sir Trevor Skeet : I feel obliged to protect the Minister, because he has a difficult job to do. As I said, he is not a lawyer, and the Attorney-General is not here to advise him. The Minister is doing the best he can, but he could get things in better shape. When we reach article J, in about six paragraphs' time--
Sir Trevor Skeet : I shall proceed a little further.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : I think that my hon. Friend will accept that we might have trouble with the next set of amendments, relating to subsidiarity, because it seems that no one knows what it means. There has been a competition, with a first prize of 140,000 ecu, but who won the prize? A former president of the European Court said that subsidiarity was a prime example of gobbledegook. How can the Committee consider such a set of amendments if no one knows what they mean?
The Chairman : Order. That is not relevant to this batch of amendments. It is the next selection, not this afternoon's selection.
Sir Trevor Skeet : We should not go round in circles on this matter. My suggestion is that the Whips and the
Column 679
Minister should take it on board that we should have a Treasury Minister and a Law Officer in Committee to answer the questions that we have raised.I should like to mention the extension of competences under the Maastricht treaty. The original areas of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act, include competences ranging from A to K in article 3. That is quite a slab of mainly economic power. I should like to mention a few of the competences : the free movement of people, services and capital, competition policy, the single market and, of course, a common agricultural policy.
People in the United Kingdom appreciated that the treaty of Rome was an economic treaty, and they understood it. It was called the European economic treaty. When we move to Maastricht, we move into an entirely different plain with a different stratum. In article 3, we have an extension of the categories from J to T. Those categories are partly economic, but largely political.
One of the political competences is citizenship, which we have already dealt with in article 8. Economic and monetary policy is dealt with in articles 102(a) to 109. Many people would say that that was dead as a dodo in Europe, because the only country which would qualify for it at present is France. Germany would not qualify, so it is unlikely that we will have a common currency in the future. There is a whole linkage of categories, including education, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans- European networks, industry and development co-operation. Do people realise how far the political powers have been extended?
There has been no reduction in the Commission's powers. Article B argues that the Commission must maintain in full the "acquis communautaire", and further tasks have been assigned to the Commission for those major purposes.
Majority voting has been alluded to. I would not be overdoing it if I said that there has been a vast expansion of majority voting in many policy areas. Column 511 in Hansard of 12 March 1986 on the Single European Act shows that the matters to which majority voting applied totalled about 86, and unanimous voting another 32. When one looks at Maastricht and written answer 169 in Hansard of 20 May 1992, one finds that qualified majority voting increases by another 40. Enormous areas of policy are covered by majority voting and the trend is definitely towards majority voting being extended further. In a Europe of 12, majority voting might be serious or less serious, but in an enlarged Europe of up to 16 countries, it would become more complicated. On several matters, such as the middle east, we would never co-operate. We have to operate as members of the United Nations Security Council. Would we not find ourselves with incompatible duties? We are still largely responsible for the Commonwealth. We have certain historic obligations. I doubt whether we could have done anything in the Falkland islands if the Europeans had been invited to have their say.
Sir Richard Body (Holland with Boston) : My hon. Friend referred to majority voting. There is a serious consideration here, is there not? If the Scandinavian countries come in, their interests will differ in many respects from those of the rest of the Community. They
Column 680
will not wish to join if decisions are made by majority voting and their interests are overwhelmed by those of other countries. That message is coming through clearly from the Scandinavian countries.Sir Trevor Skeet : As my hon. Friend appreciates, in 1996 the treaty will be renegotiated. That will mean even more majority voting. As the process of enlargement continues, we shall find ourselves in great difficulties.
I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his article in The Independent on 4 March, talked about a Europe extending right across to Russia and as far south as we could imagine. That would bring in about 30 states. He asked us to imagine what we would be able to achieve in a Europe of that size. In fairness to the Government, since the large draught of qualified majority voting was introduced under the Single European Act, we have been outvoted on only three occasions. We were outvoted on emulsifiers, on the safety warning on tobacco products and on fisheries policy in the Factortame case. That may be true. It is encouraging. That is in the past three years, but I can see us getting into great difficulties in later years.
Mr. Corbyn : I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the issue of majority voting. Is he aware that, when we move on to discuss foreign policy--if we do--the issue will be crucial? It is possible that, by qualified majority voting, troops could be ordered into parts of the world and deployed in battle? The internal foreign policies of certain countries could be overridden. For example, Ireland has a tradition of neutrality going back to 1922. That is ended by the Maastricht treaty and the consequences of qualified majority voting.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I dare say that my right hon. Friend the Minister would say that unanimity might rule. That might be true in one or two cases in the early stages. However, before the introduction of the Single European Act we had many majority cases. They will be converted to majority voting. We are on the road down. The only way to operate a large Europe is to have majority voting. If decisions are made by majority voting, it matters little what one happens to think of the United Kingdom. If the public appreciate that and are prepared to give away their powers, that is another matter, but we are under an obligation to point that out to them in the first instance.
Mr. Marlow : May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to article 104c, which deals with excessive deficits? Article 104c (1) says : "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits." The protocol says that article 104c does not apply to the United Kingdom. Article 104c (5) says :
"If the Commission"--
the Commission, no less : Mr. Delors and his friends--
"considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur, the Commission shall address an opinion to the Council." The article goes on to say that the Council, on the recommendation of the Commission, by majority vote shall take such and such action. The Commission will get into the entrails of the economy. Does the exemption under the protocol apply, or do articles 104c 5 and 6, which are not exempted, apply? Will the Commission have any control over a United Kingdom Government deficit, and will it be able to make any recommendation or have any opinion on it? As we have a
Column 681
large deficit, that is of fundamental importance. It is so important that we require legal advice, and the Attorney-General should be here to give it.4.30 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet : We shall reach debate on that subject later, but article 104c applies only during stage 3. We can debate the words "avoid excessive government deficits". The protocol removes article 104c 1 for application to the United Kingdom.
European union operates on consensus, which derives from the increasing use of majority voting. Member states with great power and authority will end up with the greatest authority. Germany had 63 million people and added another 16 million when it amalgamated with the east, which makes about 79 million people--let us call it 80 million. Under article 148, it has 10 votes on the Council ; Luxembourg, with 384,000 people, has two votes ; and Portugal, with a population of 10.5 million, has five, or half as many as Germany. When the treaty is revised, I envisage that someone will suggest, quite reasonably, that the numbers of votes should be altered, that Germany should get more and that Portugal's votes should be pared down, but that will be a difficult decision.
Let us not fool ourselves : with an economic and political treaty, the country with the greatest potential in Europe--I think that it is here-- will have the right to determine that it has more rights and more say about what does on in Europe. I do not want to be directed by a German-French axis.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : My hon. Friend's actions, in attempting to undermine the Maastricht treaty, would deliver the very thing that he fears most--a Franco-German axis dominating future developments. If the House does not approve the Bill and the Government do not ratify the treaty, who does my hon. Friend think will dominate the 1996 intergovernmental conference? Having thrown away the chance to take the initiative in the Community, which we established at Maastricht, it certainly will not be our Government. If we throw that chance away, we shall not dominate the next intergovernmental conference.
Sir Trevor Skeet : That is totally misconceived ; I had thought that my hon. Friend would come up with a more rational idea. The Government have been saying that the capital position of the United Kingdom will be almost negated and that the Americans and Japanese will leave this country. The new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Eddie George, said that the City's position depended upon the completion of the single market rather than on monetary integration--in other words, he was saying that we are in Europe. The single market is here and will remain, as the Japanese know. Referring to the Japanese, the Confederation of British Industry--a fairly responsible organisation--says :
"Only a small number would see this as having a major effect on their investment, provided it did not lead to withdrawal or exclusion from the single market".
We are not suggesting that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the single market ; we are suggesting that we should withdraw from Maastricht, which, as a political treaty, could lead to complications. Switzerland--a
Column 682
neutral country--was invited to join the European Communities. It decided to remain isolated and independent, and it is doing very nicely.I am all for co-operation, but the rights of the people must not be surrendered without their consent.
Mr. Ian Taylor : My hon. Friend must realise that other countries are applying to join on the basis of the Maastricht agreement. That is a very important point. Another point of importance is that, following a survey last week, the CBI, which my hon. Friend has just quoted, has pointed out that 19 per cent. of investment in manufacturing industry in Britain in the last five years was accounted for by overseas companies, and that more than half of those investors would regard our failure to ratify Maastricht as having a very negative impact on investment and on jobs. I refer to a CBI press release of 2 March.
Sir Trevor Skeet : Other countries invest in the United Kingdom at the time of their supreme power for the purpose of gaining access, through our membership of the single market, to other European countries. But this is not the story that Ministers are spreading.
Mr. Taylor : I am not a Minister.
Sir Trevor Skeet : My hon. Friend says that he is not a Minister. On this basis, he has no propect of becoming one.
I am keen to promote accurate information. In years to come, there may be some abatement. Germany and many other countries are going through a recession. Once they start pulling out, investment will increase again. The United Kingdom is sitting pretty. It will be the first country to come out of recession, and will be able to lead Europe in many ways. This is the most inventive country in Europe. That is why the Japanese have come here, instead of going to France and Germany. We think up processes, and the Japanese apply them.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I am sure that we have a splendid Government, but I must ask my hon. Friend to accept that we shall recover from the recession earlier than other countries because we got out of the ERM-- whereas, sadly, the others are still stuck in it. Will my hon. Friend warn our friends at the CBI that, if this treaty is approved, we shall be back with fixed exchange rates from 1 January? The Government are entitled to much credit, but my hon. Friend should appreciate that most of it is due to the fact that we escaped from the dreadful, irrelevant, artificial European monetary system.
Sir Trevor Skeet : My hon. Friend supports the line that we should remain in the ERM.
Sir Teddy Taylor : I am against the ERM.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
The Government were against our pulling out of the ERM. However, we did so, and were able to lower interest rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that, if we were to stick to the mechanism we should be all right, that we should go through with the Bundesbank. We found, however, that it was not appropriate.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford) : We were proved right about the exchange rate mechanism, but the Maastricht treaty would take us straight back into that system. This country cannot afford the risk of absorption into a
Column 683
political union that would bring protectionism and lead to massive losses in our international trading, at a time when we are running a deficit of about £15 billion a year with the European Communities.Sir Trevor Skeet : I accede to that, but do not think for one moment that one is not obliged to return to the ERM at a later stage. If one makes a close reading of article 109
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman is being tempted into areas into which he should not stray and he should return to the amendment he was summating.
Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. It would be churlish, given what I said a short time ago about the presence of senior Ministers, not to record that the Foreign Secretary is in his place.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am much obliged to you, Mr. Morris. Much against my will, I have spoken for longer than I intended, largely because of a number of interruptions--
Sir Teddy Taylor : From the Front Bench.
Sir Trevor Skeet : And elsewhere. I am glad to give way to some of my colleagues who are breaking their necks to try to speak in this debate. I would say to the Foreign Secretary--now that he is here--take your campaign to the country, sir, and give the public the facts.
The Chairman : Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that on this group of amendments. I have already ruled on that once this afternoon.
Sir Trevor Skeet : I am very much obliged. In that case
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend has mentioned Japanese investment in the United Kingdom. We have an existing institutional arrangement with the European Community. The treaty suggests--
The Chairman : Order. This specific set of amendments is about the Council, the Commission and Parliament ; it is not about Japanese inward investment. Sir Trevor Skeet.
Mr. Marlow rose --
Sir Trevor Skeet rose --
Mr. Marlow rose --
The Chairman : Order. I called Sir Trevor Skeet, not the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak later, in which case I may seek to call him.
Sir Trevor Skeet : Bearing in mind the number of interruptions from the Floor on the amendment concerning the institutions, I think that it is only right, given that the closure is likely to follow in two hours' time or perhaps even sooner, I should give other people the opportunity to make their contributions. Against my will, I have spoken for an hour, which I did not intend. I intended to be very brief, but I was induced to make a further contribution. I have done so, and I am now only too glad to finish.
Column 684
Mr. Garel-Jones : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I would be grateful for your advice, and I believe that the Committee may be, in view of the fact that, after the completion of the debate on this group of amendments, I believe that we may then come to a vote on amendment No. 28.
Throughout the debate on this group of amendments, I made it clear to the Committee that the Government had made no final decision on this matter. We shall retain an open mind on the merits of restricting representation on the Committee of the Regions to elected local government representatives. We shall, however, still be asking the Committee to reject the amendment-- not because we have a rooted objection to the principle of elected local government
representatives, but because, from the discussions that we have already had and the content of the debate, it seems wise for the Committee and the Government to retain an element of flexibility to enable us to meet the specific requirements of our regions. However
Mr. Corbyn : Why is this a point of order?
Mr. Garel-Jones : I am coming to that.
The real issue that lies behind amendment No. 28 is not its content but the fact that its approval by the Committee would trigger the Report stage, thus deliberately delaying ratification of the Maastricht treaty. [Interruption.] I am coming to the point of order.
The Chairman : Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking the Chair to make a specific ruling--that is the only basis on which a point of order can be raised, not a point of debate.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Of course. I am just coming to the question that I want to put to you, Mr. Morris. Some hon. Members have made it clear that they will be voting on this issue as a tactical manoeuvre, as it were--an approach which we deprecate. [Interruption.] I am just coming to the question I want to ask, which is important.
The Chairman : Order. Let us be clear on the procedures of this Committee. When a point of order is raised, obviously anybody from one of the Front Benches is called earlier than other hon. Members. Nevertheless, it is a point on which the Chair must rule, and it is not correct for any hon. Member to raise an issue on a different set of amendments. That is why I called to order the hon. Member for Northampton, North. The point of order must relate to the institutions and current group of amendments, and not to subsequent amendments.
Mr. Garel-Jones : If I could have your indulgence for one moment, Mr. Morris--[ Hon. Members : --"No."] I believe that I am right to say that, when debate on this group of amendments is completed--the Opposition have been good enough to inform the Committee that they do not intend to press the lead amendment in this group to a Division--we shall then move immediately to the next group. I think that that is right.
4.45 pm
The Chairman : Order. I announced last Thursday that there would be a vote on amendment No. 28 if it were moved immediately following the conclusion of the debate
Column 685
on the amendments which are before us now. That is established. What is the right hon. Gentleman's point of order?Mr. Garel-Jones : I am grateful for that, Mr. Morris. It seems to me and to my colleagues on the Front Bench that the issue that will now be voted on is a procedural one. Would it be possible--this is the question for you, Mr. Morris--given that we seek to reject the amendment in order to prevent the artificial delay of the Bill, for a further debate to take place on that matter before the Division is called?
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I was very interested in your earlier ruling, Mr. Morris, when you said that, as a legal entity, the Government were indivisible. We have just seen that this is a difficult concept to apply when the Government are schizophrenic and move from one interpretation to another of what should be done in the Committee.
Mr. Spearing : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that a Minister of the Crown, a Privy Councillor, is unaware of the basic procedures in relation to this group of amendments and subsequent ones? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Attorney-General should attend the Committee to answer the matters raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and my hon. Friend? Unless he attends, in accordance with the undertaking given, we should ask the Chairman--not at this stage, but when the debate is concluded--to consider accepting a motion to report progress.
Mr. Barnes : That seems an intelligent suggestion, which should be taken on board.
On Thursday, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was taken to task by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) on the interpretation of the word "federal". It was felt that the hon. Member for Stafford was mixing up "federal" with "unitary" and using them in an interchangeable way. The problem is that there is a sense in which the words can be interchanged, under certain circumstances, because they describe the same set of arrangements. They are most commonly interchanged when a highly bureaucratic system is being described.
Therefore, the federal structure is something of a sham, because it really turns into a unitary system. The tendency is to use the words "federal" and "unitary" in a similar way. That was how the word "federal" was used to explain the position in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. In that sense, it might not be wrong to describe federalism and the unitary system in Europe as similar. However, if we want to apply the concept of democracy to the developments that should be taking place in Europe, the distinction between "unitary" and "federal" becomes of key importance. Some people look towards a United States of Europe modelled on the United States of America, with nation rights equivalent to state rights and federal rights at the centre. They see a clear democratic division, and democratic systems determining matters at nation level and at federal level. In that context, the terms need to be kept entirely separate. I argue that we should introduce democratic aspects into the picture. We should be concerned about the serious democratic deficit in the
Column 686
developments currently taking place in the European Community. We seem to be heading towards a unitary system, not a federal system. When we first entered the Community in 1973, the Commission was clearly the only co-ordinated, organised and permanently centralised influence operating in the Community. The restrictions placed on it related to the unanimity rule, especially as it operated under the Luxembourg accord, and the treaty base under which decisions had to be justified as legally acceptable. However, the restrictions on what the Commission could do were only limited. Even within the unanimity arrangements, horse trading was possible between nations, and between the Commission and different nations, in order to advance as many items as possible and to allow the sphere of influence and treaty considerations to grow. Even then, the treaty was sufficiently wordy and complex to allow extra bits to be added.Mr. Dalyell : On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Could it be registered that the Foreign Secretary stayed for eight minutes to hear the Minister of State's point of order, and has now gone again, leaving the Treasury Bench friendless, as it was before?
Mr. Barnes : We hope that the Foreign Secretary has made way for the Attorney-General, and that someone will soon join the Minister on the Front Bench.
Mr. Marlow : On a totally separate and perhaps surprising point of order, Mr. Morris. Would it be in order for the Front-Bench team to give a commitment with regard to the Liberal party that it will introduce amendment No. 28--on which a vote is about to be taken--in the other place? Would it be in order for that deal to be done and for my right hon. Friend the Minister to make a statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box?
Mr. Barnes : I see that, in order to make my speech intelligible for those who read it, I shall have to get some scissors and paste to stick together the flow of my argument.
As well as the co-ordinating factor of the Commission, the other aspect that existed from the time of our entry into the Community in 1973 was the role of the Council of Ministers. It met in secret conclave and operated-- depending on which version one prefers--either as the legislative organisation making the final decisions in Europe or as a rubber stamp, somewhat like the Privy Council when it agrees to ratify legislation that has passed through the two Houses. The Council of Ministers finally gave legal respectability to measures that were based on decisions that had earlier emerged from the Commission.
Mrs. Dunwoody : That was never the case. It was always clear that the Council of Ministers--through its civil servants in the Committee of Permanent Representatives and through previous meetings--had total control over the agenda. Although there was some horse trading, there was never any question of the Council of Ministers becoming a rubber stamp. We need to develop our EC Committees so that they have even more powers to control our Ministers, not to seek to create other institutions outside.
Mr. Barnes : That intervention illustrates the distinction between our two views on Europe's future development.
Column 687
Presumably my hon. Friend looks towards a Europe of the sort that initially emerged, whereby, under the unanimity provisions, we could block measures through decisions taken by our Ministers. I look to something different ; I want something of a proper, democratic, federal nature to be established in Europe. For there to be merely a blocking mechanism, which could be used by nation states, was unacceptable to me. Our views are influenced not just by what has occured, but by how we see matters developing in future.The next set of institutions that developed were consultative and included organisations such as the Economic and Social Council and the European Parliament--a strangely named parliament, which was not a parliament in the sense of a decision-making institution. It was no more a parliament-- perhaps even less of a parliament--than that which developed in Germany under the Kaiser, which was a consultative avenue. At least Germany at that time was under universal franchise, and the Parliament was seen to be important and a sign of the various developments of the Social Democratic party. It gave various openings to Germany's future.
The same could not be said of the European Parliament, which was a purely consultative and amorphous body consisting of different representatives of different nations of different political tendencies. The representatives' voices might be taken into account, but often were not. No wonder there was little interest in what took place in European elections. The decisions that were being made through those elections had very little impact on what would influence the future development of Europe.
The problem with the subsequent changes under the Single European Act and the Maastricht provisions is that the move to overcome the democratic deficit is complex. It contains some progressive elements that are heavily stressed by advocates of Maastricht. However, it also contains many regressive elements that are used by opponents of the development of the Maastricht treaty. We must be aware that those two elements are intimately interconnected.
Mrs. Dunwoody : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I shall not interrupt further. Will he give a short and accurate description of exactly what the term "democratic deficit" means in English?
Mr. Barnes : Essentially, it means that Europe is not operating according to the democratic principles. We want a move either to establish such an operation or to pull away from further bureaucracy. I do not know whether the hon. Lady wishes to take up those points--
Mrs. Dunwoody : I am your hon. Friend.
Mr. Barnes : I think that as I progress it will be discovered that I have very few friends in the debate. I argue strongly against Maastricht and involve myself in all activities in the House that seek to block the Maastricht treaty. We want a proper, social, democratic and federal Europe. That is often the aim of some of those who support the Maastricht treaty, but it will not achieve that. I support many of the arguments relating to danger used by opponents of Maastricht and agree with the vision of
Column 688
some of its supporters, but I do not think that their aims will be achieved by the treaty, which sends us further into the unitary democratic progress.The Chairman : Order. Before the hon. Gentleman philosophises any further, will he return to the amendments under discussion?
Mr. Barnes : I thought, Mr. Morris, that I was confining myself to this rather wide group of amendments ; I was dealing with some of the relevant aspects of political philosophy, but I shall, in deference to you, return to the subject.
It seems to me that Europe has been only nibbling at the democratic deficit, not tackling it head on. We have moved some way towards giving the European Parliament a greater impact, but such moves have been severely limited. Under the Single European Act, the Parliament operates co- operation procedures with ECOSOC. If there is no unanimity in the Council, certain measures can return to the Parliament for what is called a second reading--although it is a strange form of second reading, and not one that we would understand. Here, on Second Reading, we can make solid decisions or block legislation. In Europe, we are talking about a second consultation on a measure that has been to the Council of Ministers.
5 pm
If the European Parliament is not co-operative and amends a measure, and if the Commission agrees, the Council can adopt the qualified majority voting rule, but the Parliament is only employed to provide further scope for the operation of that rule.
To some simple-minded people, it might seem that qualified majority voting was a democratic procedure. A number of people get together ; they do not have to agree unanimously ; one lot can outvote the other. It all depends who is making the decisions, and how they have been appointed. In this case, they have been appointed by the nation states and they have been horse trading among themselves before deciding how to act. They are all experienced at using certain devices to hoodwink their own national parliaments about what is taking place.
In this House we have a system of so-called scrutiny, but even if we decide to change a recommendation from the Government in Committee, the Government merely change the resolution when it comes before the whole House and pass what they have wanted all along. The scrutiny measures of the House cannot actually control the Government, therefore. That is not a shortcoming on the part of hon. Members or of our institutional arrangements ; neither is it the fault of our Clerks who serve the various Committees. Everything is done as effectively as it can be, but ultimately nothing can be achieved because of the structures into which we are tied.
| Next Section
| Home Page |